Education Bill Ready To Face Final Hurdles

After wading through more
than 100 amendments, the Senate last week overwhelmingly approved a
bill overhauling the federal role in schools.

Leading senators now are preparing to work out the final provisions
with their House counterparts. The finished product, which along with
the recent tax cut stands out as a leading priority for the White
House, could be in President Bush's hands by August.

There is remarkable similarity in the architecture of the bipartisan
bills revising the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which passed
both houses with big majorities.

But plenty of work remains, from negotiating spending-authorization
levels and defining what constitutes a failing school, to deciding how
much flexibility the new version of the law will allow and who gets
that flexibility.

Despite the broad Senate support—the bill was approved 91-8
last Thursday—the process has faced some close calls since the
Senate took up the bill the first week of May. In fact, just last week,
several leading Republicans were threatening to hold up the bill over
an amendment that would have trimmed some spending flexibility in it.
They argued that the proposal, which was narrowly defeated, would have
undermined a bipartisan deal negotiated, in its broad outlines, before
the bill reached the Senate floor.

For their part, Democrats had an easier time beating back one of the
amendments that would have caused them the most heartburn: a proposed
pilot voucher program. Eleven Republicans joined all but three
Democrats in voting it down.

The bill approved June 14 would reauthorize the ESEA, the main
federal law for precollegiate education, which includes Title I and a
host of other programs.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige urged lawmakers to move quickly to
complete their task, "even if [Congress] has to go into a summer school
session."

Both the Senate and House bills reflect many core elements of Mr.
Bush's education agenda, including expanded testing requirements, new
educational options for students in failing schools, and a new reading
initiative. The bills also would make higher demands on schools to
improve student performance or face tough consequences, though there is
considerable debate over how stiff those demands should actually
be.

Through compromise, some of the president's plans have not survived.
Democrats successfully resisted Mr. Bush's proposal to allow publicly
funded tuition vouchers for students in persistently failing schools,
for example. And while the bills contain some flexibility and program
consolidation, they do not go as far in that direction as the president
initially proposed.

A Growing Bill

Indeed, during the weeks of debate, the Senate kept busy adding
programs, from new ideas to long-standing initiatives that had been
consolidated or removed in the original bill. For example, amendments
authorized funding for school libraries, prevention of suicide and
alcohol abuse, and physical education.

And while the GOP has styled itself as the party of "flexibility"
and streamlining in the ESEA debate, some Republicans carried
amendments promoting their favorite projects.

Sandy Kress, the president's chief education adviser, said that
overall he was pleased with the Senate bill, calling it a "very good
step" that incorporates most of the Bush education agenda.

"It's virtually all there, but there's so much more," he said
in reference to the bill's steady expansion. "The grade would not be
high on the issue of consolidation." He said the House did a better job
in consolidating programs, and he predicted that negotiating that
terrain would be among the primary tasks when House and Senate members
meet in a conference committee.

A related change that has raised some eyebrows is the bill's
authorization level: It climbed substantially during the Senate debate.
Mr. Bush proposed spending $19.1 billion on ESEA programs in fiscal
2002, an increase of about $670 million. The Senate bill would
authorize $33 billion.

"It is frightening how much money has been added in terms of
authorizations as we go forth," said Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "I say
this as someone who believes we need to significantly invest increasing
amounts in education."

The House bill would authorize about $23 billion for ESEA programs
next year.

Democrats—who gained control of the Senate this month when
Sen. James M. Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican
Party—insist that the White House must be prepared to raise
education spending dramatically to meet the new demands imposed in the
legislation.

Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the new majority leader, suggested early
last week that he might delay sending a final bill to the president
until the Democrats had gotten a commitment on funding. But a day
later, Mr. Daschle seemed to soften his stance.

"It certainly wasn't my intention to throw down any gauntlets," he
said. "I just suggested that before we can complete our work, we have
to know what kind of resources are going to be there."

Vouchers Go Down

Last week's floor action included what many believe to be "Taps" for
voucher supporters' hopes of getting such aid into the ESEA legislation
this year. The amendment offered by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., to launch
a pilot voucher initiative for poor children in several cities and
states was shot down, 58-41.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was planning to offer his own voucher
amendment, even more finely tailored to help low-income students only
in the District of Columbia. But shortly after the Gregg amendment was
rejected, Sen. McCain announced that he would not offer it. Two of the
pro-voucher groups that he had worked with on the amendment asked him
to withdraw it.

"They said they were afraid they were going to lose, and that they
wanted to wait ... and build support for it," Mr. McCain said.

Asked whether it might resurface during the appropriations process,
he said, "Maybe, but I'm not optimistic, to tell you the truth, because
I think this was the best time to have the debate and the vote."

Another amendment that garnered substantial controversy last week
came from Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn. It would have limited the
flexibility in a pilot version of the "Straight A's" initiative.

Under a Straight A's compromise in the Senate, up to seven states
and 25 districts could consolidate funding from several major programs
into a block grant in exchange for negotiating five-year performance
agreements with the Education Department. Sen. Dodd's amendment would
have removed the federal after-school program from the list of
programs. But Republicans said the Dodd proposal would do great harm to
a bipartisan deal worked out in advance of floor action.

"If that had won today," Sen. Frist said shortly after the vote, "it
would have put the whole bill in jeopardy." He noted, with frustration
in his voice, that Republicans had already compromised on Straight A's
by agreeing to make it a pilot program rather than open it for all 50
states to apply.

Straight A's will be another tough issue for the House and the
Senate to negotiate. The House took a slightly different approach,
allowing 100 school districts but no states to apply.

Other thorny issues include how to define "adequate yearly progress"
for schools. Persistently failing schools face a series of consequences
under each version of the ESEA, such as paying students' transportation
costs to attend another public school, allowing parents to direct a
portion of a school's federal aid to pay for private tutoring, or even
replacing the school staff.

Daniel Weiss, a spokesman for Rep. George Miller of California, the
House Education and the Workforce Committee's ranking Democrat, said
that the definition of adequate yearly progress was a central issue,
and that there were clear distinctions between the Senate and House
approaches.

"The House bill is better on accountability," he argued, saying that
tough language to help close the achievement gap between students of
different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds has been one of Mr.
Miller's top priorities. "Almost more than anything else, it's the
reason that George Miller and President Bush got together" to work on
the education bill, Mr. Weiss said.

The White House and leading senators have said the House language is
too stringent, and would make too many schools into "failing" schools.
They negotiated an alternative, though critics have attacked it as
being too complex and not demanding enough. ("Bush, Democrats Compromise As ESEA
Bills Take Shape," May 16, 2001.)

But the Senate will carry to the conference table the most expensive
distinction between the two bills: guaranteed $2.5-billion-a-year
increases for special education. That is almost certain to be a tough
issue, especially now that Democrats will take the lead for the Senate
negotiating team, facing off against members from the
Republican-controlled House.

Early in the Senate debate, a bipartisan amendment was approved that
would shift funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
from the discretionary to the mandatory side of the budget, locking in
increases for years to come and dramatically increasing spending. It
would allow up to $181 billion in extra spending over the next 10
years.

Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., said that while he has mixed feelings
about the legislation, he views the special education provision as one
of the best.

"There's good and bad," he said. "I mean, I think that the
fundamental good part is the IDEA."

Asked about the chances the special education funding provision
would survive, Sen. Jeffords said: "I'd say 50-50, no more than that."
He has indicated that disagreement with the White House over special
education was one reason for his Capitol-shaking switch to Independent
status, aligned with the Democrats.

While a few Republicans support the idea, many others, in addition
to President Bush, do not.

"We're for more money," said Mr. Kress, the president's adviser.
"The question for the [House-Senate] conference will be, do we want to
get to the mandatory issue, and do we want to get to truly
extraordinary levels of increase ahead of the reform that needs to take
place?"

Vol. 20, Issue 41, Pages 1, 34

Published in Print: June 20, 2001, as Education Bill Ready To Face Final Hurdles

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.